https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=58369 Section 104 additional tax was not justified where dividend non-distribution was explained by statutory dividend restrictions, liquidity pressure, and genuine business needs. The Commissioner (Appeals) accepted that the Companies (Temporary Restrictions on Dividends) Act, 1974 limited dividend payment, while factory relocation, curtailed bank facilities, and probable gratuity liability strained funds. Advances to a firm connected with a director were treated as business advances for yarn purchases, not misuse of distributable profits. Applying CIT v. Gangadhar Banerjee & Co. (P.) Ltd., the tribunal treated section 104 as a penal provision requiring a prudent-businessman assessment and upheld cancellation of the additional tax. en-us Sat, 24 Apr 1982 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 18 Dec 2010 16:49:37 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=58369 Section 104 additional tax was not justified where dividend non-distribution was explained by statutory dividend restrictions, liquidity pressure, and genuine business needs. The Commissioner (Appeals) accepted that the Companies (Temporary Restrictions on Dividends) Act, 1974 limited dividend payment, while factory relocation, curtailed bank facilities, and probable gratuity liability strained funds. Advances to a firm connected with a director were treated as business advances for yarn purchases, not misuse of distributable profits. Applying CIT v. Gangadhar Banerjee & Co. (P.) Ltd., the tribunal treated section 104 as a penal provision requiring a prudent-businessman assessment and upheld cancellation of the additional tax. Case-Laws Income Tax Sat, 24 Apr 1982 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=58369